Massachusetts voters to consider money in politics

Eli Sherman Wicked Local @Eli_Sherman

Wednesday

Oct 10, 2018 at 11:35 AMOct 10, 2018 at 11:35 AM

It costs a lot of money to run a successful political campaign.

If there’s any doubt about it, ask Massachusetts Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, both Democrats, whose campaign committees raised a combined $52 million between 2013 and Sept. 15, 2018, according to the Center for Responsive Politics based in Washington, D.C. In the current election cycle, the nine U.S. House of Representative incumbents raised a combined $13.8 million in Massachusetts.

The numbers only grow after accounting for the millions raised for statewide, regional and local elections. And those millions do not include the cash that flows from political action committees and leadership PACs, funded largely by wealthy individuals and special interest groups. The seemingly endless amount of money is spent in support or opposition of the politicians.

In Massachusetts, Ballot Question No. 2 proponents have identified money in politics as an issue in desperate need of repair.

“We’ve seen elections get more expensive every single cycle,” said Ben A. Gubits, national political director at Concord-based American Promise. “This has had a tremendous impact on the people’s ability to have a voice in our democracy because political power has been concentrated to those who can afford it.”

American Promise is the organization behind the political group People Govern, Not Money, which is calling on voters to approve Question No. 2. The ballot measure, which voters will address on Nov. 6, would establish a nonpartisan, 15-member Citizens Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment -- if approved by Congress and ratified by the states -- would essentially overhaul the current system of political finance, including the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United that determined campaign spending by companies and other groups is protected by the free-speech clause of the First Amendment.

The landmark decision opened the door for unfettered political spending by nonprofits such as the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood, along with private companies like Amazon and General Electric.

The fallout, Gubits argues, has been detrimental to American politics and its democracy.

“We’re losing ground in our democracy because we continue to see elections in government dominated by wealthy donors,” Gubits said.

American Promise is pushing the idea across the country, claiming to have established grassroots operations in all 50 states. The group is led by its president, Jeff Clements, a lawyer who served under former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The nonprofit, which touts widespread bipartisan support, has set a goal to get the amendment -- which would become the 28th Amendment -- ratified within the next seven to eight years. The Mass. Citizens Commission would become the first in the nation, and Gubits hopes it will be replicated in other states.

“We anticipate there will be an opportunity to do something similar in other states in 2020,” he said.

The ballot measure has not received the same level of attention as the more-polarizing ballot questions No. 1 and No. 3. The first asks voters to establish nurse-to-patient limits, and the third deals with discrimination against gender identity in public places.

Nonetheless, an opposition group to Ballot Question No. 2 called No on Two for Freedom of Speech filed a statement of organization with the state on Oct. 2.

Jonathan Lederman of Marblehead is listed as its chairman, according to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Lederman did not respond to calls and an email requesting comment. As of Oct. 5, the group had not yet filed any campaign finance reports.

The argument against overturning Citizens United, however, typically stems from the idea that government restricting any form of free speech is a slippery slope. The clash of opinions is spelled out by the ACLU.

“Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights,” according to a post about Citizens United on the ACLU website. “Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.”

At the same time it’s advocating for less money in politics, People Govern, Not Money is also raising tens of thousands of dollars to support Ballot Question No. 2. Since 2017, the group has raised $200,750 and spent about $181,348, according to campaign finance reports.

When asked about it, Gubits acknowledged the paradox, calling it ironic. But he underscored that the average donation of $35 is a far cry from the millions being spent elsewhere in politics, and pointed out that currently it still takes a lot of money to run successful campaigns.

“You have to raise money to run big campaigns,” he said.

Eli Sherman is an investigative and in-depth reporter at Wicked Local and GateHouse Media. Email him at esherman@wickedlocal.com, or follow him on Twitter @Eli_Sherman.